linux-ext4 - Re: ext4_ext_check_inode: bad header/extent in inode

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:59:27 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext4_ext_check_inode: bad header/extent in inode

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 03:34:12PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> So these are funny inodes:
> 
> # file mnt/lost+found/*
> mnt/lost+found/#12042: setuid setgid character special
> mnt/lost+found/#12207: setgid socket
> mnt/lost+found/#12249: setgid socket
> 
> by virtue of the corruption.
.
> so we shouldn't be checking the extent header, I think.
> 
>         if (ei->i_flags & EXT4_EXTENTS_FL) {
>                 /* Validate extent which is part of inode */
>                 ret = ext4_ext_check_inode(inode);
>         } else if ...
> 
> Or maybe fsck should be clearing the extents flag on inodes like this?
> 

Good catch!  Yeah, probably both.  The kernel should only validating
the extent header if the file is regular file, a directory, or a symlink.

And e2fsck should be clearing the extents flag on inodes like this.

I'll create the patch....

							- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html